The "inevitability" factor that permeates our party this year may not be a good thing.

There is an element that is especially strong this year. It is the "inevitability" factor that permeates our party. I don't refer to just the presidential race, though it is part of it.

It includes as well the way the funding for the Iraq War was done. It was presented as a victory, when in fact it was not one at all. Our own party tried to spin us on it. I believe it is inevitable that we will continue to be in Iraq, and no one is willing to be honest about it. They say they don't have the votes, and that settles the issue for them.

It was the same feeling when we tried to fight against the invasion to begin with. They did not hear us then, the plans were made.

It includes the covert way the trade deal was put into motion. That deal spoke of unions having a say. Apparently that was not true.

Labor voices not included

The Chamber of Commerce has this to say:



Got that? They are unenforceable.

It does include the 08 elections to a degree. The inevitability of the front runner has been used until it is discouraging. It gives, as is it meant to do, the impression that powers far beyond the activists are in play. We will have had 12 years of the the Bush family and 16 years of the Clintons.

I have great reservations about that. Bush 41 and Bill Clinton said it would be good to cool their friendship until the election. I agree, but that connection is still there.

There is the inevitability of what Bush said the other day....the destiny of our country and the conflicts in the middle east. He said it was our destiny. He referred to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and said "This is our country's calling, it's our country's destiny." Not one Democrat has disagreed.

I felt during the primaries in 03 and 04 that there was a hope that we could make a difference. That we as activists could help bring change to a party now dominated by corporate influence. Even as Howard Dean became chairman, we still hoped. Problem is, many of us were concerned that this was a deal to silence his outspokeness. I was one of many who wanted him to remain building DFA. He would have made a great SAKAL, the term coined by Bill Scher of Liberal Oasis. Strategic Ass Kicker at Large. SAKAL. A role meant for him.

They did not pass the bill to allow Medicare to bid for drug prices. That should have been important, a very first step. But that too is part of the inevitable nature of our party now.....the money from drug companies is vital to stay in power.

It was inevitable that the rights of women and gays would be put on the back burner with the party saying to those groups that they need to back off until we win then we won't use you as scapegoats as the Republicans have.

I don't have the enthusiasm and hope I once had. There is far too much politically correct speaking, so as not to offend the right wing. Another inevitability: their party must be loyal to their base...the far right fundamentalists. SO...to counteract that our party, instead of appealing to our very large base of activists who want us out of Iraq, who want fair trade not free trade....they are appealing in many ways to the 30% who are Bush's base. Yes, they are appealing very much to Bush's base.

Today I posted that James Carville was continuing his attacks on Howard Dean. Carville has every right to say what he thinks, but he hurts our party when he says those things in public speeches. Some understood me and could see that the threat of giving Harold Ford the chairmanship was necessarly having the effect of keeping Dean in line. Especially since he was almost immediately made chairman of the DLC.

Dean defends self from Carville.

Ultimately with Carville claiming, and the new book about Rahm claiming..that others are involved in this these attacks could cause less speaking out. I think Carville knows when he does that it undermines us once again. It discourages those of us who want change in the party, and perhaps that is the intention.

The party is much easier to run without all us noisy activists bugging them all the time.

I did not watch the debates last night because I just feel overwhelmed by words. Sometimes they mean something, sometimes they don't. I hear it was a good debate. I did not watch because I know in the long run it is already set in motion.

I did not watch the forum with Jim Wallis tonight. I don't want to feel that I must concern myself with things religious right now. I was raised in a Christian family. My parents if they were still alive would have been appalled at the state of the churches here in which they were so active. They were some of the top Southern Baptist leaders, and we were raised there.

We left our church over the war. It takes time to get over that. I don't want our party making me feel that I don't belong in a religious way. I don't want the Christian left to start dictating to our party the way the Falwells, Robertsons, and Dobsons have done to the GOP. There should be caution.

But that is inevitable also. That the party will take its cues from the Christian community right now. We have seen the results already of the lack of opposition to Bush's court appointees. They will have to take cues from that community because they have to appeal to the 30%, which is now often 28%.

I want to say something which I have noticed. I have seen the "cult of personality" stuff taken to the extreme against those of us who supported Dean. I want to say that some here need to examine their actions, because they are most surely going to start getting that same criticism from people soon.

A disclaimer: I am a Democrat, and I realize in the end of it all I have no choice but to vote for the nominee.

and a K&R cause you deserve it!

Most likely it will be the only k&r. But that's ok. I don't expect it.

unless there is a new candiate in the race (such as Gore or Clark). I think they both showed last night why they are the front-runners.

They are our strongest candidates. So, in my view, it's not so much that they are "inevitable" because of nefarious forces. They are inevitable because they are the best choices we have.

Edit: I would add, with all due respect to other candidates, everyone in the field is an asset to our Party. And, we ought to have a strong nominating process and vigorous debate. That said, after watching the candidates closely it seems to me it is becoming readily apparent the two who have between them the best grasp of policy and vision. Clinton has the best grasp of policy, and Obama has the best vision. I think voters see that. It's going to be a tough choice.

You are speaking to the inevitabilty. Thank you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1046025

"The Democrats in Congress have lost much of the leadership edge they carried out of the 2006 midterm election, with the lack of progress in Iraq being the leading cause. Their only solace: President Bush and the Republicans aren't doing any better.

Six weeks ago the Democrats held a 24-point lead over Bush as the stronger leadership force in Washington; today that's collapsed to a dead heat. The Democrats' overall job approval rating likewise has dropped, from a 54 percent majority to 44 percent now -- with the decline occurring almost exclusively among strong opponents of the Iraq War...."

I guess we could call this the "inevitable" result of forgetting why we sent them there.


:(

Its the wrong attitude. The only way the dems are going to get anything done is to increase their majority in the Senate, hold or increase their majority in the house, and get a dem president. That makes LIEberman irrelevant, and they can pass some of the legislation. Plus, a dem would be the president of the senate. Its going to be more important than ever to vote in 2008.

Do I hope that we don't have to hold our noses and vote dem again? Yes. I was strongly for Gore and for Kerry in the last 2 elections. I am really hoping Gore will get into this one. But if I have to hold my nose and vote for a dem, I will do it. The thought of another 4 years of a neocon president is just too much for me to bear.

It means they know we will stay.

The voices of the activists are not being heard, they are listening more to the 30% that are Bush's base.

The congressional Dems are losing in the polls now since the vote not to get out of Iraq.

http://mydd.com/story/2007/6/5/134928/2565

"Teaming up with Republicans to perpetuate a blank check in Iraq apparently is not what Democrats wanted from their new congressional majority. Democratic congressional approval is falling, primarily because of Iraq capitulation."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/04/AR2007060401230_pf.html

Chris Bowers'summation:

"No matter how many Democrats are in Congress, one problem we have not solved is the chronic problem of many Democrats capitulating to Republican demands and frames. Iraq is only one case. While virtually every Republican presidential candidate claims to be the "true conservative" in the campaign, are there any Democrats who claim to be the true progressive? Our party and our caucus remain extremely divided, even at a time when two-thirds of the country is lined up against Bush, Republicans and the conservative agenda. After the Iraq capitulation, the Democratic majority in Congress deserves lower approval ratings from opponents of the war, who happen to be 60% of the country right now. The only thing currently saving them from depressed base syndrome is a combination of new cash infusions from corporate interests, and an equally, if not more so, depressed Republican base over immigration. LieberDems rejoice--welcome to Steny Hoyer's Democratic Party."

and I'm glad they don't fool you either!

Being treated like an idiot does get rather old.

:yourock:

Great post, mf.

Read this statement by Jim Wallis:



I do want my government and congress to be secular. I get chills when I read this. I am the "secular left."

Jim Wallis and the "Moral Center" on Abortion

It is a very long post filled with great research. I have often said our party is leaving behind two groups in order to win...women and gays. It is wrong. They could choose to speak out.

I did not watch the forum last night...but moiv posted a page I had forgotten in my files. Read the pledge at Priest for Life. I believe Father Frank Pavone is their leader. Read it all and look at the signatures.

I see Jim Wallis's name listed.

As to how it fits the "inevitability" idea? Well, they are already starting down the road to limiting abortions. It is "inevitable" that women will lose more rights before we win. Then the rights will be lost.

A Statement of Pro-Life Principle and Concern (1996)



Yes, he signed that.

what went on with Cindy Sheehan? And, we've seen so little of Howard Dean...has he already been "thrown under the Bush with the Leftie Activists?" Or, is Dean the next to go?

Don't know really.

from a write-up about the book, The Thumpin. I don't like this source, but these quotes are from the author of the book and from a former DNC secretary. It all sounds odd.



We always hear the nominee controls the DNC, but read the bylaws. It is a conundrum wrapped in the puzzle...etc.

He doesn't spend all his time on Cable TV because he is busy rebuilding the Democratic party into a balanced party and not just the playground of the DLC and their corporatist friends. By the time Howard steps down this will be a national party.

;-)

The new DLC philosophy for the Democratic Party is that....business is good, big business is better, globalism should be unfettered, business needs catered to, and LABOR BE DAMNED.

That's why you see the Party supporting the US Chamber of Commerce and George Bush instead of its traditional roots, and that is also why the Party lost many who vote against their economic interests. It used to be obvious why people voted Democratic as they protected the jobs and interests of middle America...now it is no longer obvious.

It does not matter what I say on what topic, you don't see anything in it except what you want to see.

Now I will do what I need to do so I won't see your baiting me anymore.

By then Dean had built a national movement from the ground up, and so you're absolutely right "inevitability" was a factor...Hillary is inevitable according to madfloridian because the money-power elite in Washington wills it through maximum contributions and snazzy 30 second sound bites.

It gives, as is it meant to do, the impression that powers far beyond the activists are in play. We will have had 12 years of the the Bush family and 16 years of the Clintons.

There is the inevitability of what Bush said the other day....the destiny of our country and the conflicts in the middle east. He said it was our destiny. He referred to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and said "This is our country's calling, it's our country's destiny."

By then Dean had built a national movement from the ground up...by now Hillary has built a distinguished career.

Difference? MF adores Dean and abhors Clinton.

And I use "ain't" deliberately.

You call out MF but ignore your own severe bias.

I call out hypocrisy. I'm fully aware of my bias. Others deny theirs.

Moreover, the term has gone out of fashion but you might as well have said the New Left. Your last two sentences are Orwellian.

"Every protest, every dissent, whether it's an individual academic paper, Founder's parking lot demonstration, is unabashedly an attempt to forge an identity in this particular age. That attempt at forging for many of us over the past four years has meant coming to terms with our humanness. Within the context of a society that we perceive -- now we can talk about reality, and I would like to talk about reality sometime, authentic reality, inauthentic reality, and what we have to accept of what we see -- but our perception of it is that it hovers often between the possibility of disaster and the potentiality for imaginatively responding to men's needs. There's a very strange conservative strain that goes through a lot of New Left, collegiate protests that I find very intriguing because it harkens back to a lot of the old virtues, to the fulfillment of original ideas. And it's also a very unique American experience. It's such a great adventure. If the experiment in human living doesn't work in this country, in this age, it's not going to work anywhere."

http://www.wellesley.edu/PublicAffairs/Commencement/1969/053169hillary.html

Reading Hillary Rodham's hidden thesis
Clinton White House asked Wellesley College to close off access

"Democracy is still a radical idea"
The confident young student took her thesis title — “There Is Only the Fight...” — from T.S. Eliot:

"There is only the fight to recover what has been lost and found and lost again and again."

She began with a feminist jab at the clichés of male authors: "Although I have no ‘loving wife’ to thank for keeping the children away while I wrote, I do have many friends and teachers who have contributed to the process of thesis-writing.” She thanks particularly “Mr. Alinsky for providing a topic, sharing his time and offering me a job.”

Hillary Diane Rodham already had covered a great deal of ideological territory when she sat down to assess Alinsky's tactics.

She grew up as a Goldwater Republican, like her father, in the middle-class Chicago suburb of Park Ridge. By the time she was a freshman at Wellesley, when she was elected president of the College Republicans, her concern with civil rights and the war in Vietnam put her closer to the moderate-liberal wing of the GOP led by Nelson Rockefeller. By her junior year, she had to be talked by her professor into taking an internship with Rep. Gerald R. Ford and the House Republican Caucus. In her senior year, she was campaigning for the anti-war Democrat Eugene McCarthy.

"I sometimes think that I didn't leave the Republican Party," she has written, "as much as it left me."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388372/

I smell a farce.

What makes it somewhat better is the Republican candidates hurt their cause every time they try to out-RW each other.

The MEGA Corporations have created the illusion of inevitability with their TV coverage and mega donations to the "inevitables" campaigns. They are hedging their bets. Either Obama or Hillary is a WIN/WIN for Big Business in 2008.

The American Sheep buy what the CorpoMedia sells. They want the feely goodies of cheering on their winning highschool without even looking at the issues. :puke:

K&R for madfloridian!

because it just isn't important.

It's also inevitable that people who cant' get decent health care will continue to suffer and die because we can't figure out how to rid ourselves of the insurance companies, and don't yet care enough to do so.

It's also inevitable that poor people will continue to be ignored by both parties, because we can't provide them with what they really want--$$$$$$$

All that inevitability makes for a shitload of depression.

:argh:

I guess it's time for a mass uprising.

"ellisonz you're sounding irrational, ignore politics, be happy..."

It's kinda of ironic that whenever one begins to discuss totalitarianism they immediately cite Hitler, Lenin/Stalin, and Mao as homicidal dictators while ignoring the basic fact that all 3 came to power because of extreme economic inequality. America 2075...that is if global warming doesn't put an end to the whole charade first.

Music will save our souls from the bottom of the emotional barrel.

:-( :hi:

People who *do* ignore politics are happier. People who ignore reality are happier.

It's stressful to be aware, and more stressful to be trying to do something about it. (Which is why it would be so much more productive to receive support on DU, rather than all the snarking...)

this is why I'm so thankful for my foremothers who fought so valiantly on my behalf! They voluntarily made their lives miserable for the benefit of those of us who came after.

I'm also grateful to writers like Chalmers Johnson, Howard Zinn and others, because I know it's stressful to keep looking at what *IS*.

I guess all I know is to keep on keeping on, and plug away at the inequities, and try to smell some roses along the way.

Mostly what is sorely needed is loving community.

*THAT* I don't see much of, and I firmly believe it's killing us.....

for you....

:hug:

:donut:

I don't have much hope.

What he *does* talk about is coming together in community.

Going by what I see around me, and here at DU, I don't hold out much hope for that, either.

is that feeling that all of the Democrats are appealing more to Bush's 30% than to us.

I think they feel they have to do so. They have been urged for years by think tanks to speak softly, be cautious, don't make waves.

Once Dean on Fox with Colmes said DC Democrats were suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

I think there is that tendency...we have to appeal to them. It has not yet occurred to them they need to listen and speak to us. I don't think they know how.

about the current race.

In fact, the only people who I ever see use the word are those whose candidate is not one of the top two.

There's a long way to go, and things can certainly change. There was a time when Howard Dean was "inevitable".

But, the top two are the top two for good reason - they're the strongest candidates, and have thus far out-performed the others.

The 08 election is only part of what I wrote.

Read it.

Yes, actually, Hillary is inevitable. She has the power, the money, and Bill.

but it was rather incoherent and rambling.

But Clinton is not inevitable - she's just the frontrunner.

Oh, my.

In fact that hurt my feelings so badly that I will make it #4....

Just kidding, did not hurt my feelings :evilgrin:...just pissed me off and made me decide that when it is useless to try to hold a nice conversation....then....

I wasn't trying to hurt your feelings.

I was discussing one part of your post. I explained why I didn't respond to all your points.

Is it a requirement that all responses address every point you make?

....is stacked against us....always has been....

....what is also inevitable, is that the Good Doctor will either be completely purchased by the corporatists or they'll give him the boot at a point where a challenge by Dean would either be impossible or ineffective....

....it's corporations vs. the people and we know who usually wins; it's inevitable, in a wall-street-based system....

*prays*

now feels that the Repugs may not win, we will get a Democrat bought and paid for by the Corptacracy.
Read some history on Teddy Rosevelt.
Read Howard Zinn: A people's History of the United States.